Keenan v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keenan v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

193 A.D.2d 719, 598 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4936

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 17, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 193 A.D.2d 719 (Keenan v. Sears Roebuck & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keenan v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 193 A.D.2d 719, 598 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4936 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Sears Roebuck and Co., Gibson Appliance Co., and White Consolidated Industries, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated March 15, 1991, which denied their motion to preclude the plaintiffs from introducing evidence at trial responsive to certain of the items in their demands for a bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that the purpose of a bill of particulars is to amplify the pleadings, limit the proof, and prevent surprise at trial (see, Ferrigno v General Motors Corp., 134 AD2d 479). The statement set forth in the plaintiffs’ supplemental bill of particulars sufficiently particularized the specific acts of negligence which gave rise to the asserted defect (see, Moore v Chrysler Corp., 100 AD2d 955). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Sears Roebuck and Co., Gibson Appliance Co., and White Consolidated Industries, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated March 15, 1991, which denied their motion to preclude the plaintiffs from introducing evidence at trial responsive to certain of the items in their demands for a bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that the purpose of a bill of particulars is to amplify the pleadings, limit the proof, and prevent surprise at trial (see, Ferrigno v General Motors Corp., 134 AD2d 479). The statement set forth in the plaintiffs’ supplemental bill of particulars sufficiently particularized the specific acts of negligence which gave rise to the asserted defect (see, Moore v Chrysler Corp., 100 AD2d 955). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 719, 598 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keenan-v-sears-roebuck-co-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack